Wibble Results

[collect (null)]

as far as I can tell, this should be right … and I am glad I did not choose Widdle …

WIBBLE

1. a short, high-pitched trill at the end of a bird song.(Shefler) 5 8 [Abell]
1 point

2. of a river, to have meandered to such an extent that ox-bow-lakes have formed, and the now relatively straight path of the river is bordered by wibbles — the historic meanders.(Barrs) 5 11 [Davis] [Shepardson] 2

3. to splash or agitate (a liquid).(Madnick) *6 10 2+0=2 points

4. a loop or ring of leather, cord, etc. through which the end of a Scout’s neckerchief are threaded.(Keating) 5 *6 [Embler] [Shepardson] 2+2 = 4

5. red breed of domestic rabbits.(Widdis) NV [Keating] [Barrs] [Shefler] 3

6. to speak foolishly.(Chambers) NV [Keating] [Bourne] [Madnick] [Mallach] [Naylor] D5

7. an injury to the hind leg of a horse caused by its being struck by the shoe of the other hind foot.(Mallach) *6 10 [Lodge] 2+1=3

8. a playful, twisting leap made by a rabbit with a 180 degree turn in midair.(Naylor) 1 *6 [Embler] [Shefler] [Lodge] 2+3=5!

9. a destructive or troublesome insect or small animal.(Davis) 2 11 nil

10. to compain lengthily and without justification.(Lodge) 7 8 [Bourne] [Madnick] [Mallach] 3

11. a large stiff, usually lace, collar that dominated fashion in the late 16th and 17th centuries, and was a symbol of wealth, prestige, and social status.(Embler) 8 4 [Davis] [Barrs] [Abell] 2+3=5


Bourne *6 10 2 points
Abell 1 11 0
Shepherdson 2 4 0


Debbie Embler and Shani Naylor in a tie … I suspect Debbie Embler is the next dealer as a result …
Dave


Sent from my iPad

[Efrem Mallach]

I may be wrong, but shouldn't we look at the 4-round rolling scores in the table? The rules say this:

(b) A player who has a higher 4-round rolling score (not including the results of the round being resolved) ranks higher.

If my interpretation of this is correct, Shani is ahead of Debbie and should have the next deal.

I await rotten tomatoes thrown from New Zealand. Fortunately, I don't think Shani's arm is strong enough to reach the northeast U.S.

I also await confirmation or correction, as the case may be, from someone who's better at exegesis than I am.

Efrem

========================

[Shani Naylor]

No tomatoes,  rotten or otherwise, from me. I'm happy to deal if it's confirmed that I'm ahead. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dixonary" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dixonary+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dixonary/BC0101FE-15B2-47B0-98BC-A28FCE55474F%40gmail.com.

[Paul Keating]

This is a neat example of the lingering confusion caused by 1990 rules’ instructions for resolving ties. In a tie it declares (in 9(b)) Da Winnah to be

the person in the tie ... who has the then-highest 5-game rolling score

and if you look at the rolling scores report for round 3353, it contains the following:

                     5-Round 4-Rnd  Round    Round    Round    Round    Round
Player                 TOTAL         3349     3350     3351     3352     3353
-------------------  -------      -------  -------  -------  -------  -------
Embler, D...............   8   5       3*       3        1                 1
Naylor, S...............   7   7       0        3        1        1        2

from which it appears that Debbie has the higher score, 8–7. Except that Rule 9(b) goes on to say

… the 5-game rolling score (including the results of that round)   

Now the rolling scores report only goes to round 3353. It obviously can’t contain the results of round 3354 until after the dealer has announced them. So the latest report available is always the one for the previous round, and, to calculate the 5-game rolling score, including the results of the round being resolved, it is necessary to subtract out the oldest score (red) and add in the newest score (green):

                     5-Round 4-Rnd  Round    Round    Round    Round    Round    Round
Player                 TOTAL         3349     3350     3351     3352     3353     3354
-------------------  -------      -------  -------  -------  -------  -------  -------
Embler, D...............   8   5       3*       3        1                 1        5
Naylor, S...............   7   7       0        3        1        1        2        5

 
That puts the 5-game rolling score, including the results of the round being scored, at

Embler, D...............   8 - 3 + 5 = 10
Naylor, S...............   7 - 0 + 5 = 12

Observe that the adjustment puts Shani ahead of Debbie, 12–10 points. Also observe that the tied score of 5 in each case makes no difference to the outcome, because the difference is 2 points either way. So you can more easily use the 4-round rolling scores, also given in the report (which are 7–5), instead of performing the calculation that gives 12–10, to resolve the tie. Russ Heimerson added that squeezed-in 4-round column to the report after a campaign on my part to include it, in the teeth of opposition, as I recall, from one or two players, who could not be persuaded that, as The “Real” Rules remark,

Requiring the 5-round rolling scores to include the current round’s results was clearly an oversight. The sole purpose of the rolling score is to resolve ties in the current round, and including the current round’s tied scores in it does not serve that purpose.

Perhaps you think I need to justify the statement that the sole purpose of the rolling score is to resolve ties in the current round. If you examine the 1990 rules you will see that the rolling scores are mentioned 3 times. Rule 8(b)(2) calls them into existence, Rule 8(d) specifies when they are to be published and by whom, and Rule 9(b) says what their purpose is. So, if not used to resolve ties, the rolling scores report would have no purpose and without that purpose would be no more than pointless record-keeping.

--
Paul Keating
Soustons, Nouvelle Aquitaine, France

--

[Shani Naylor]

Thanks Paul

Phew... I'm glad I didn't have to figure that out  but I'm still not 100% sure who is the official winner.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dixonary/c1fdf2a0-cf50-d6a6-192e-34717634ef64%40boargules.com.

[John Barrs]

Paul

Correct me if I am wrong

I think this one is resolved by the rule about 'natural' and 'unnatural' points

Shani had a 5* (3+2 for a correct guess)

Debbie had a 5 (all genuine votes)

so Debbie is the winnah and next dealer

JohnnyB

Virus-free.www.avg.com

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dixonary/c1fdf2a0-cf50-d6a6-192e-34717634ef64%40boargules.com.

[Hugo Kornelis]

In Dave's overview, he lists both Debbie and Shani as having three votes, and 3+2=5 points.
However, he also lists Debbie as voting for 4+8, which means that perhaps he made an error and should have given Debbie 3+0=3 points?

(I did not check the votes cast, only the data in Dave's message)

Op 2-6-2023 om 11:15 schreef John Barrs:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dixonary/CALLSrcAwV%3DDH16YB%2BN%2ByHVX1iBZMDYRnHbvbSuvWU1UOh5a55A%40mail.gmail.com.

[collect (null)]

If I erred, I did not do so out if malice at all … just my normal senility honed over decades.

Dave

Sent from my iPad

> On Jun 1, 2023, at 20:31, collect (null) <col...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
> as far as I can tell, this should be right … and I am glad I did not choose Widdle …

[Chowie]

Sure am glad y'all worked this out while I snoozed, because I did not vote for the right definition,  and Shani is most definitely the winnah. Good exercise for everyone, eh?

Congrats, Shani!

Bending beneath His mercies,
Debbie E.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dixonary" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dixonary+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dixonary/69546944-4CEB-4E8C-AB18-5DA2AEC68C06%40compuserve.com.